952 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

How about detail and open examination of the facts as well as the purpose of the mission?

bob  

Agreed and perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. What you state was my, and in consideration of what I perceive of Kissinger's honesty, his purpose as well in engaging in this argument. I am not as interested in "the party line", nationalist polemic, and simplistic polarization on this all too important issue,.

I am only interested in exploring for construction solutions that might not only mitigate the current crisis but take us forward into a more secure state of being. Toward that end I think I have been constructively addressing historical precedent and relevant issues with a focus upon the fundamental arguments being used to justify our intentions and designs.

I have not yet addressed the oppposing culture as I am less confident of their motives but intend to openly examine them as well. With as little prejudice and bias as I can encourage.

[bobdrake12]

For those interested, the Link below contains the Rand study ["Confronting Iraq: U.S. Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War"]:

http://www.rand.org/...ions/MR/MR1146/

bob

[bobdrake12]

I am not as interested in "the party line", nationalist polemic, and simplistic polarization on this all too important issue.

Lazarus Long,

The Hegelian dialectec teaches little; perhaps, that is why it is emphasized in the current educational system.

You and I have explored the facts on many issues before, and I have learned a lot from them.

Unfortunately, in this particular discussion I must remain neutral as I have in the past over all current politcal issues.

bob

[Lazarus Long]

As a point of reference the "Hegelian Dialectic" that you are so openly critical of is also called the "Socratic Method" for good reason and is considered the "logic" behind the "Scientific Method". I would argue, that in fact while they "talk the talk" they do not infact "walk the walk" when it comes to actually applying the dialectic to their own assumptions in Public Education.. In this I refer to teachers, taxpayers, parents, administrators, politicians, and students alike.

I don't agree that we need a simplistic return to traditional values. I think the valid values of the past will be demonstrable in their appropriateness and purpose through a rational analysis and the evaluation of cause as well as effect.

Regardless, I agree whole heartedly with what you are outlining with this list and I think we have in fact begun to fill out its elements. This was clearly my purpose in addressing the historical precedent and background motives for policy and intent. I respect your neutrality but I am glad to have your sense of common purpose with respect to the search for "truth".

How about a detail an open examination of the facts as well as the purpose of the mission?

For example collaborative problem solving might include the following steps:

o Fact gathering (deciphering facts from factoids as well as history from similar ventures)

o Conclusions from those facts

o Potential options (including what specifically is the mission?)

o Rationale for picking a given option (including potential cost versus potential gain)  

Well said and I think that in general we have been true to this purpose. Nevertheless this outline is a good reminder and guide.

I will only add that I think that showing motive for personal gain is also an important element. Of only one thing about this I am already sure, there is much more going on than is meeting our eyes.

Here is another source and take on the matter.

DESERT CAUTION: ONCE 'STORMIN' NORMAN,'
GEN. SCHWARZKOPF IS SKEPTICAL ABOUT US ACTION IN IRAQ
By THOMAS E. RICKS
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page C01
http://www.washingto...-2003Jan27.html

and

IRAQ WAR: THE FIRST QUESTION
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
New York Times
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
http://www.nytimes.c...ion/28KRIS.html

[Lazarus Long]

Sorry, master.
I couldn't resist.
[blush]

Can we close this thread now?  

no

[Lazarus Long]

IN respect of what you have suggested Bob here are a few links that deserve inclusion.

War on Iraq and the Palestinians - Jordan Times (Jan 31, 2003)

Troubled times - ArabNews (Jan 31, 2003)

UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) - collection of the United Nations documents relating to the question of Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East since 1947.

The U.S. and the Search for Peace in the Middle East - from the U.S. Embassy and Information Service in Israel.

Confronting American liberalism - The Daily Star (Lebanon) (Jan 29, 2003)

CATO Institute

The Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project

The Times online

Tehran Times

The Progressive Magazine

The Christian Science Monitor

The Washington Post online

The New York Times online

Bogus Reasons For War On Iraq

Where are the Islamic Moderates?

Jerusalem Post

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

The Economist

Disarming arguments
Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, told the Security Council that Iraq, on balance, had not accepted the disarmament expected of it. For the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear-weapons programme. Article Warning for this one they want money.

Pacifica Radio

State Autonomy and Internatinal Relations PDF

News and Numerous separate links

I really hope this wasn't overkill for most people as this is just a first salvo of related news sources and general topic articles. The responsibility in a democracy to BE an informed citizen is commeasurate with the validity and responsibility we bear as citizens for the actions of our government and validation of any integrity we might claim. This list has some specific articles but is more a general list of serious sources and can be data mined by any and all that wish to. This is what real analysis is about but it is only a start.

Ignorance is no excuse. This applies to individuals and groups, citizens and governments, it even applies to a people. But it is especially true for the citizenry of a democracy and holds for a simple felony or the high crimes of States. As in the case of cops with guns, judges, and politicians of State, we ARE held to a higher standard and this is the price of progress and a stepping stone to a Type 1 Civilization. Those who can't take this level of heat are forgiven but not excused, get over it.

It is true for ALL the protagonists in this action not just the United States.

[bobdrake12]

As a point of reference the "Hegelian Dialectic" that you are so openly critical of is also called the "Socratic Method" for good reason and is considered the "logic" behind the "Scientific Method".

Lazarus Long,

Actually, I see these as two different methodologies.

I am very much in favor of the "Socratic Method" which uses questions to develop a latent idea in the mind of the student.

I am very much against the "Hegelian Dialectic" which is an interpretive method in which some assertible proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by an equally assertible and apparently contradictory proposition (anti-thesis), the contradicition being reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). One reason for my being against this methodology is that many times there are far more than just two or three options. Secondly, this method appears to ignore data collection and testing the interpretation of that data which is so vital to scientific approaches such as those used in Six Sigma.

I don't agree that we need a simplistic return to traditional values. I think the valid values of the past will be demonstrable in their appropriateness and purpose through a rational analysis and the evaluation of cause as well as effect.

I believe the US needs to return to the former competencies such as in mathematics and science.

Ignorance is no excuse. This applies to individuals, citizens, and governments, it even applies to a people. But it is especially true for the citizenry of a democracy and holds for a simple felony or the high crimes of States. As in the case of cops with guns and politicians of State, we ARE held to a higher standard and this is the price of progress and a stepping stone to a Type 1 Civilization. Those who can't take this level of heat are forgiven but not excused, get over it.

I am in full agreement with your premise. Bravo, Lazarus Long!!!

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 February 2003 - 06:17 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Are there any other studies that provide different results?

bob

http://www.usatoday....raq-peace_x.htm

08/02/2002 - Updated 01:29 AM ET

Study stuns senators with scale of Iraq peacekeeping mission (excerpts)

By John Diamond, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Mounting a peacekeeping mission in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein would involve 75,000 troops and cost $16 billion in the first year, a detailed study presented to lawmakers Thursday estimates. A defense intelligence official said that figure could be low.

The report by a retired Army colonel envisions a peacekeeping mission that could last up to a decade and involve special operations forces, airborne troops, infantry brigades, armored divisions and police trainers. The mission outlined to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is only slightly more ambitious than what is taking shape in draft plans at the Pentagon.

One insider familiar with that planning said the estimate by retired Col. Scott R. Feil, co-director of a panel developing plans for post-conflict Iraq, could be low. As many as 80,000 troops and an annual cost of $20 billion could be required.

Whatever numbers wind up in official Bush administration plans, the testimony in the second day of hearings on the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq underscores the massive scope of military operations envisioned to prevent anarchy in that country once the formidable task of toppling Saddam's regime is accomplished.

"The planning for post-conflict reconstruction must commence now," said Feil, co-director of the Iraq study sponsored by the Association of the United States Army and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank based in Washington.

Lawmakers reacted with astonishment at the scale of the peacekeeping mission envisioned.

"This is a very daunting prospect," said Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. "There is an enormous commitment of expense and people for a number of years."

A U.S. peacekeeping force in Iraq would have to be roughly twice the size of the force sent into Bosnia in 1995. That's because of the possibility of infighting among ethnic Kurd, Arab and Shiite factions in Iraq and the threat that outside forces, possibly from neighboring Iran, would try to exploit the post-conflict chaos.

Other missions for the peacekeepers:

o Securing Iraq's chemical and biological stores and manufacturing plants.
o Patrolling the Iranian border area.
o Guarding major oil fields.
o Disarming and demobilizing unreliable portions of the Iraqi military.
o Feil arrived at the $16 billion figure based on a per-soldier cost estimate of $215,000 annually. The force could be gradually reduced as the Iraqi economy and security situation improved. But at least 5,000 U.S. troops would have to stay in Iraq for five to 10 years.

The hearings, which will continue after the August congressional recess with appearances by top Bush administration officials, have been notable for the lack of serious opposition to the idea of an invasion.

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 February 2003 - 05:48 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Here is another report. Again are there any other reports showing different data?

bob


http://www.smh.com.a...1989998907.html

UN report predicts Iraq catastrophe (excerpts)

By Julia Preston and John Hendren in New York and Washington

January 9 2003


As many as 500,000 people in Iraq could require medical treatment for serious injuries if the United States and its allies launch a war there, a confidential United Nations report says.

The report was disclosed as senior US military officials said battle planners would return to the Persian Gulf command centre in Qatar in time for war to begin by the end of this month.

The command centre would be ready to strike Iraq by the time the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, report to the UN Security Council on January27.

The UN report, Likely Humanitarian Scenarios, was posted on a website on Tuesday by a British student group, Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. The group did not explain how it had obtained the document.

UN planners paint a dire picture of Iraq after extensive bombing and ground fighting. The large casualty estimate is predicated on this scenario, which would involve far greater loss of life than the narrow bombing campaign of the 1991 Gulf War.

"It is also likely that in the early stages there will be a large segment of the population requiring treatment for traumatic injuries, either directly conflict-induced or from the resulting devastation," the report says, warning that half a million people "could require treatment to a greater or lesser degree".

The report estimates that about 3million people across the country will face "dire" malnutrition and require "therapeutic feeding". It paints a picture of a crippled nation, with roads, bridges and railroads shattered, the electricity grid badly damaged and oil industry paralysed.

As many as 900,000 refugees could require food and shelter from the UN and other relief groups, the report warns. It also foresees the need to set up transit camps near the Iraqi border for as many as 500,000 people.


The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 February 2003 - 05:39 AM.

[DJS]

Lazarus, all of those links and you forgot www.drudgereport.com!!

[bobdrake12]

Kissinger,

Thanks for the input on the Drudge Site.

I have included another report on Iraq with different numbers.

bob

http://www.guardian....2223783,00.html


Study: Iraq War Could Cost $1.9 Trillion (excerpts)

Friday December 6, 2002 8:10 AM



WASHINGTON (AP) - In the worst case, a war with Iraq could cost the United States almost as much as the government spent in the last budget year - nearly $2 trillion, according to new projections.

Researchers concluded in a study released Thursday that war with Iraq could cost the United States from $99 billion to more than $1.9 trillion over a decade.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and nation-building campaign; the higher figure assumes a prolonged war with a disruption of oil markets and a U.S. recession, the authors say in a study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Both figures assume a U.S. involvement in the country for 10 years.

Direct military spending could range from $50 billion in a short campaign to $140 billion in a prolonged war with Iraq, said the study titled, ``War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives.'' The study was done by the academy's Committee on International Security Studies.

The report cautioned that aside from the estimates of direct military costs, all the numbers should be ``regarded as informed conjecture.''

Occupation and peacekeeping costs could be $75 billion in the best case to $500 billion in the worst, the study said. Reconstruction and nation-building costs are estimated at $30 billion to $105 billion, and humanitarian aid at $1 billion to $10 billion.

Economic ripples of war with Iraq are likely to spread beyond budgetary costs, with the prospect of raising the cost of imported oil, slowing productivity growth and possibly triggering a recession, the report said.

A prolonged disruption of world oil markets could cost the U.S. economy up to $778 billion, the researchers estimated. On the other hand, Iraq's huge oil resources could satisfy U.S. needs for imported oil at current levels for almost a century and otherwise benefit the economy by $40 billion.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

[bobdrake12]

The URL for the leaked UN report on Iraq is shown below.

Lots of data is included. I consider it a worthwhile read.

bob


http://www.casi.org..../war021210.html

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 February 2003 - 04:54 PM.

[bobdrake12]

I really hope this wasn't overkill for most people as this is just a first salvo of related news sources and general topic articles. The responsibility in a democracy to BE an informed citizen is commeasurate with the validity and responsibility we bear as citizens for the actions of our government and validation of any integrity we might claim. This list has some specific articles but is more a general list of serious sources and can be data mined by any and all that wish to. This is what real analysis is about but it is only a start.

Lazarus Long,

Thanks so much for the URLs!

I went through them and found a wealth of information much of which has not been covered by "the dominant TV media news".

Consider the following two approaches to the news:

o Many in the general public want soundbites and headlines. Thus, "the dominant TV media news" is no longer providing the news, but instead it consists of inane entertainment which it calls the "news". I cannot fault "the dominant TV media news" for providing the general public with what it wants.

o Some of the general public want more than inane entertainment since they are intellectually committed to a doctrinaire (whether it be a religious, anti-religious or a given political viewpoint such as viewing the news from only a Republican party or Democratic party slant) and want to review the news along with its analysis from only that perspective.

Neither of the two approaches does much for me, although I do believe in reading everything and listening to everbody before I perform my own research. Thus, I do use both of these sources of news at times. Even so, I believe research needs to include a broader perspective (beyond ideological boundaries) which gets at what's really going on and not just based upon what the ideological spin that tries to make us believe what is happening.

Getting back to the point of this discussion; hopefully, most of those joining in this discussion have read the material you have provided.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 February 2003 - 06:37 PM.

[DJS]

One more good website-- www.thewire.com

It gives you links to international papers from around the world so you can avoid the filter that sometimes gets put on domestic news.

Additionally, I am all for a debate of the costs of a war in Iraq. As long as it done fairly. Tossing that $2 Trillion number around seems a tad high, wouldn't you say. Also, note that it is not taking into account the savings we would get from a fall in oil prices after Iraq's supply is opened up.

Edited by Kissinger, 03 February 2003 - 10:28 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

[quote]"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not; a sense of humor to console him for what he is."
--Francis Bacon [/quote]


I hope you are well rested, Don. And I so like referring to you as Mr. Kissinger. It is so less personal. But dueling is an intimate sport and when one enters the contest they must look directly into their opponent's eyes.

I know we are all still reeling from this most recent blow in common but I think you and I need return to the central issues although we see them so very differently and I see them not at all how you expect me to.

Yes?

Good...

It is wonderful fun Grasshopper to get back in the dojo after all this time, please let us begin round two. Thank you for inviting me back into the fray and this arena.

I see us as having outlined the many faces of death until now though I see this much more as a movement in five pieces, "death, dueling, dualism, diplomacy, and dance," five uneasy pieces. Since I first wrote this much has happened that exemplifies, both the symbolic and pragmatic aspects of death that I wanted to address in my previous statement. The spectacle of human sacrifice is still one that creates enormous social impact and consequence that few ever foresee in advance. It is both the element of Chaos, and death by design.

Please, let me help you with your weapons.

In fencing the choice weapons of the west are foil and epée The foil is considered the subtlest, it is flimsy by standards of weaponry and highly flexible. It is only effective at intimately close distance and only with its tip. It is a weapon of assassins, kings, and children. Its mastery is both the most basic and considered the most sophisticated. Its analogue in the East might be ninja fans.

The epée is more sturdy, but retains much of the finesse of the foil. Its unique T-like triangular shape provides stiffness to mimic the heft and balance of a rapier, but its is blunted so that slashing is still mitigated in effect and it is still the point that is the focus of this practiced martial art. It is the level of epée that most achieve but few partake for it is the foil that is lightest and easiest for use. In dueling foils it is hit or miss but in epée one can find smartness in the hackneyed wounds, points don't accrue as fast as welts. The Eastern analogue might be kendo with a bokku made of bamboo.

Next we encounter a more complex range of weapons. This diverse field that fills this complex middle ground though is almost nowhere any longer practiced. The range is as wide as the arc formed between battle axes and short swords, daggers, rapiers, and double handled twin bladed broadswords.

The reason this area of weaponry is more serious is that usually it is here when a soldier is forced to choose a specialty and foment that particular practice, refining and focusing one's skill with a weapon to meet one's natural talent. Here there are only two objectives, kill and survive.

You may select whichever armament you want but I stipulate for reasons of honor that we only wield what works between us, and none any that kill at a distance. Dueling is about honor and it is also about competitive dominance. Very much like debate.

I suggest the legionnaire's sword. It is balanced, sturdy, highly maneuverable, reliable, very efficient, lighter and much easier to bear in the field than the broadsword. The Roman Short Sword was said to be the first weapon of mass destruction and the first weapon produced by mass production. The broadsword however, belongs in exclusively in the "Final" category of weapons for unlike all previous ones this last category is for more than just killing as the weight and character of the weapon includes the piercing of personal armor and shield.

To talk of killing millions one must at least be able to at contemplate the intimate killing of an individual. Oh I see, perhaps you think it requires much more courage to push a button then to drive a keen edge home between ribs and feel someone's life pour out into your hands and over your flesh.

Or is it just VR mayhem that is to your liking, a little "Hit Man" perhaps, "Road Kill" or is it going "Postal" that strikes your fancy? No, I am not talking about video bytes, I am referring to real bites, and soft flesh and hard bone and actual spilling of blood. Oh yes we are so seemingly civilized as we offer WMD strategy to the world and shy away in horror at the sight of butchery, slaughter, and suffering survivors.

Of course if you are a large person or very small you might prefer the lighter twin headed axe, Marines still carry the rapier for dress purpose but the bayonet is the modern variant, and Special Forces learn the use of various double and single edged blades. But remember no pikes, lances, bows, or pistols.

Simply not cricket old fellow.

Remember it was dem liberals that tried to develop that tactical strategy of killing by remote control. Right? We don't really use Predators in the field. We use Special Forces.

Personally, I am fond of the staff and have played occasionally at that balanced form. My personal preference in blade is the Uchigatana, commonly known as Katana, or the Samurai Sword here in the West. I was surprised to find that a well made machete is remarkably similar to the Roman short sword in balance though much lighter, its weight reflecting the wooden macehuatl it was converted from.

Please select the weapon{s} of your choice, feel free, take your time and feel the balance, the way cold steel transforms hot flesh, practice and understand that you must become one with your weapon.

[quote]
Kissinger says:

Lazarus, the pleasure is mine. Practice does make perfect and the stiffer the resistance, the better prepared ones arguments will become. Sorry about my lengthy responses, I've just been hibernating indoors this weekend because of the cold. Shooting the shit on imminst.org is a way to occupy my mind. [/quote]

You are apologizing to me about lengthy replies how considerate of you. Apology accepted. Now do I have to apologize too? I guess I should apologize in advance to all for caring so much about this issue but I think a lot needs to be written and much more than I've done.

Yes this practice and play between us is quite good, I find it very stimulating.

[quote]
A little history about myself. I have been playing chess since I was seven years old. I view foreign policy in much the same way I view chess. At the age of 19 I left college and went cross country, spent a year backpacking. I really wasn't sure what I wanted to do with my life. When I finally came back to Jersey I had to get a job. I fell into a job as a commercial appraiser. I've been doing that for three years now. It pays the bills. Around two years ago I found a book at a yard sale--Diplomacy, by Kissinger. I started reading it in the mid afternoon. I kept reading straight through the night until I passed out early the next morning. I knew that I had found my passion. After that I read everything ever written by Kissinger. He is a genius. This not to say that I am not diversified, I've read stuff by almost everyone. Currently I am saving my money to go back to Rutgers in the fall so I can eventually get into the field of strategic analyses.

and you wrote:

Hi everyone, my name is Donald (Don) and I am 23 years old. I live in Bloomfield New Jersey which is about 10 miles west of New York City. I am 62.5% Irish, 25% Italian and 12.5% English. I was raised Catholic, but I am agnostic.

I began college at Rutgers in September 97. At the time I really had no direction or idea of what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. After my Sophmore year I decided to take some time off and travel. So I packed up my stuff into my car and headed cross country. Wound up in San Diego. Sold my car which was a high school graduation present. Got some decent cash for it. Back packed around Mexico for a month or so. Went back to San Diego, got a one way to Sydney. Spent a month down under. Hooked up with a group of kids my age and got another one way to Thailand. Spent two month on the beaches near Ko Samui. Partied with a bunch of Auzzies, smoked a lot of Ti Stick Ill finish this post later gotta run for now .
[/quote]

Still you have been mostly a tourist though it does appear the call of going native is heard.

A very similar tale to how I found myself reading Heinlein, though I was much younger. Good luck on getting back into Rutgers. I sincerely wish you well.

I was a wolf child.

I often ran off and left the disciplines and safe confines of the lab after my parents' divorce. I began by roaming the streets and environs of New York City. The subway was still a quarter then and there was little way to force me to comply as my father was too busy healing folks.

This was the 60's after all and I was in puberty. "Be-In's" in Central Park with Santana and the Starship mixed with real war abroad and a very real threat of immediate annihilation. There was so much to watch in the world, race riots, gang wars, and reckless abandon. Yep, I even had to do "Duck & Cover Drills" in the Public Schools but I got to hear Dr. King and the Kennedys speak in person on the street. I had to go look up their speeches much later to find out what I had missed because I was too small to hear over the din of crowd.

Eventually my wild ways got noticed and I was banished upstate to "cool my heels" and it worked, I learned to run wild and naked in the woods too. I also learned to see things very differently than most people I heard talking about what I had seen. I am afraid I stole many of the books I was reading.

I was for the Vietnam War as a foolish child and asked questions even then about the inherent contradictions of affirmative action among my black friends but I began wondering what was going on when I helped triage the wounded with my father after the riots at Columbia University. It was quite illuminating to see phalanxes of mounted police in riot gear wielding clubs march on unarmed demonstrators with your own eyes. Talk about Cossacks: No, no scimitars but trampling works well even without blades.

Have you ever walked from safety into a pending riot thinking how can this be stopped?

I have.

I was a translator for FEMA. A coworker-friend and I helped stop a riot between a half dozen armed marines and a few thousand Cuban refugees at Ft. McCoy one hot summer night in 1980.

They rioted in Ft. Chaffee, they rioted at Ft. Indian Town Gap, they rioted in "Little Haiti" at the makeshift shelters under the bridge there and they were about to riot at Ft. McCoy that night when Bryon and I got very stupid.

You want to talk to me about Carter?

Don't start.

I was there working in Ft. McCoy under lock down inside the fort when the orders to send up the bombers went out three times in one month and twice in one week that summer. Twice that week we went to DEFCON Three status and each time we came back, to refugees with salt on their clothes, hostages in Iran, Soviets in Afghanistan, and Nukes on active launch mode, storms and sleepless nights.

So you think we should just heft a little weight around and everyone will take notice huh? Yes they certainly do. Have you bothered to ask them what it is they think about what they notice?

Many think we're definitely dangerous, and possibly incompetent, if not a little demented.

One of the times we almost killed all life on the planet that week was because of a computer glitch and another time because a meteorite confused sensors on both sides into thinking someone had already launched. We saw the fiasco as our special forces made a spectacle of themselves in the deserts of Iran. Yes as voters we blamed Carter. It was ironically many of the same geniuses of foreign policy that planed that disastrous mission and stayed on into the next administration to achieve such notable mentions as trading cocaine from Latin America for cash to buy guns so that they could supply Iraqi and Nicaraguan Contras with weapons and profits to Dark Op coffers.

It was the next administration, Reagan's, along with many of specifically the same strategists that took up the policy of arming and fomenting "Religious Extremism" in the region of Southern Asia against the Soviets that have now come full circle to manage a crisis, they in fact set in motion back then. They did it to exploit traditional rivalries and divisions within the Soviet Block. In particular they funded the Taliban, Muhajadeen, and a specific group that came to be known as al Qaeda and its leader, Usamma bin Laden.

Now these are the same guys that are going after their own runaway puppet in the way Noriega had to hide from Big Daddy. The easiest way they could justify attacking Iraq is if someone could claim bin Laden was hold up there. The only problem with this is that bin Laden originally tried to kill Saddam.

But what's a little blood between rivals?

Could he be there now?

Who?

O. bin Laden, dats who...

Only one problem, he is smarter than that; bin Laden is ecstatic we are taking out his former foe and creating a possible vacuum for messianic monarchs to manipulate and maneuver in. It is exactly the scenario he has been preparing for and training towards all along. He is getting us to do his dirty work and effectively destabilize the region allowing for power vacuums that his cadre can fill.

Ironic huh?

[quote]
You and Afghanistan! Once again, what did you expect us to accomplish in Afghanistan? There is only so much you can do for a nation that is so undeveloped. Besides, it is not just us in Afghanistan.  [/quote]

What do I want from Afghanistan?

I want what we claim we went in for, bin Laden. Oh yeah, he is no longer important. Funny it's hard at times to tell if he ever really was important. From a strategic sense, not a tactical we failed in the mission. We are wining battles and losing the war.

Did we destroy al Qaeda? No.

Did we catch Usamma bin Laden? No.

Did we destroy the Taliban? Apparently and they were a terrible threat. They had mounted cavalry and no effective airforce, tanks, and heavy weapons. Oh yes, a major battle won here.

Did we bring peace and security to the country? No, not really, this is still being time tested.

Have we in fact begun to foment the majority of the populous against us? Yes.

Just look at the results of recent elections in the region. Look at Pakistan and Turkey's results. And at the grassroots level it is much, much, worse. Recruits are begging to be martyred and T-shirts with bin Laden's picture are sprouting up like icons to the Virgin Mary in Mexico and Ché emblems in Cuba.

Yes Afghanistan! We lead a mission into that country for all the above reasons and these as well:

[quote]
Let me spell out reform

Representative government, civil rights, economic prosperity. These are my terms. Are these fair terms?
[/quote]

Now we look like duplicitous over eager thugs that lust after battle to do all the fighting and leave all the real work of the promised and still quite unrealized Nation Building to our suckered allies. That sure is an enticement to bring more on board now isn't it?

And don't forget this is the same political group that has campaigned for decades on keeping us out of the nation building business. Now it looks too many like they can't, or won't get their act straight. Oh yes, trust them they are professionals. They are many of the same expert talking heads that got us all into this mess in the first place.

Nothing they do ever comes back to haunt us. No way could the decisions today ever escalate to unforeseen proportions, nope. Nothing like this ever happened before. We have very "plausible" reasons to deny culpability, anyway everyone knows there was a war on, the Cold War and of course that one is over now, so everyone go home and don't worry we have experts running the show now. They are personally familiar with the protagonists and have a lot of practice in dealing with them.

Lies and Oil?

Why most certainly it is a shame when negotiations deteriorate in this manner, it sure has made it a fact that the real Patriarchs involved have difficulty doing business as usual. The bin Laden family isn't welcome at the White House at this time though they haven't been crossed off the guest list forever. This must be kind of how old Queen Victoria felt after she had to preside over warring prodigy. It definitely puts a pall on the party when the dancers start threatening to destroy one another's cities and governments.

Nobody will credit our arguments for reform if whenever they scratch the slightest bit at the surface of our new found altruism they discover this greasy slimy truth, when we say reform all we generally mean is oil. More poignantly, oil flowing securely NOT just to us, but to our allies, ironically in particular our allies in Europe and Asia.

You have even less likelihood of imposing Reform then Democracy. Does the concept of oxymoron come to mind? It is as absurd as Obligatory Generosity or Mandatory Joy. Please wake up and pay attention, even a primitive bushman is cognizant of contradiction and will tell you to go to hell for destroying his world in order to save him. This situation, despite all claims to the contrary, is NOT rocket science.

[quote]
Mr. Kissinger says:
God, I'm not going into another comparative analyses between the US and Rome. I really don't find it very applicable to tell you the truth. Are there some similarities? Yes, but there are many many differences. Modern times are so different from the rest of history. Our strength is based on economic efficiency and technological superiority, not conquest and agriculture. I just find it hard to make a convincing case one way or the other using Rome as an example.  [/quote]

Rome wasn't an agrarian economy based on simple conquest, Rome was the first Military Industrial Republic with a dependency on global free market capitalism and a multicultural populous. Much of your above statements are simply ignorant of history and this bodes ill for you are MORE likely to repeat unnecessary mistakes from the past.

Oh Cicero what was that you said, just give them bread and circuses and the masses will always be content, give them good news and motive, or fears and they will follow you to the ends of the world for conquest and trade. Oh no Cicero today we are so much more sophisticated we all truly think for our selves. There is nobody controlled by the media and everything is openly debated.

Our people are so well informed! Today everyone is so involved in the Democratic Process that everybody votes.

[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 28, 2003)
What of our own nation's illustrious domestic history in all this? Tell us all please of the difference between Caesar and Cincinnatus? And the importance of a League?

you replied:

Cincinnatus--I am ignorant on this matter. Just being honest, I am not all knowing.
[/quote]

No you are not omniscient but I do find you promisingly plain spoken. Here perhaps this will help.


[quote]CINCINNATUS, LUCIUS QUINCTIUS (b. C. 519 B.c.), one of the heroes of early Rome, a model of old Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the pleheians, he resisted the proposal of Terentilius Arsa (or Harsa) to draw up a code of written laws applicable equally to patricians and plebeians. He was in humble circumstances, and lived and worked on his own small farm.

The story that he became impoverished by paying a fine incurred by his son Caeso is an attempt to explain the needy position of so distinguished a man. Twice he was called from the plough to the dictatorship of Rome in 458 and 439. In 458 he defeated the Aequians in a single day, and after entering Rome in triumph with large spoils returned to his farm. The story of his success, related five times under five different years, possibly rests on an historical basis, but the account given in Livy of the achievements of the Roman army is obviously incredible.
http://www.factmonst...e/A0812266.html[/quote]

This Roman Patrician General was brought in to suppress the workers revolt of the Plebians when they began demanding more rights, better wages and working conditions, and respect from the oligarchy, better representation, lower taxes, and more involvement in governmental decision. Class war is an ancient conflict.

The Patriarchy put down the socialist aspirations and insurrection and offered Cinncinatus the Crown of Rome and he shocked the Senate by refusing the dictatorship (all the words for this type of government we use till today come from this time period). He argued he had fought to defend the principles of a democratic republic not to destroy them. In turn he forced concessions upon the patricians to try and alleviate the conditions that had promulgated the revolt in the first place. He didn't intentionally set himself up as a standard of virtue he simply refused to be self indulgent and chose a life of honest dealings, discipline, study, work, and service.

I have raised the comparison between Caesar and Cinncinatus for a reason. I am most certainly not the first to take heed of their important behavioral choices and differences. George Washington found in Cinncinatus's life his inspiration and determination. It was in respect to this long dead General of a lost Republic that he came to the decision to reject the Continental Congress's offer to become King of America. It was in his refusal to accept, and in his own insistence at disbanding the Colonial Army that he insured the beginnings of this Republic that all too many today take for granted.

Early in this thread William quoted Tacitus who said:

[quote]
It is only necessary to make war with five things:
with the maladies of the body,
with the ignorance’s of the mind,
with the passions of the body,
with the seditions of the city,
with the discords of families.
Tacitus
[/quote]

George Washington added:

[quote]
http://encarta.msn.c...refid=762504359
Profoundly penetrated by this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest token of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
[/quote]

The presumption that so much has changed, that we are so qualitatively different and more advanced socially and that our problems are qualitatively more profound then at various times in the past is demonstrably false from almost any and every serious study of history.

What is a true and verifiable fact is that they are QUANTITATIVELY different.

Hence what is underlying motive in this global geopolitical dance is a question of numbers, not principles. I think that what is needed to reach Level 1 social development is precisely the debate concerning principle and recognition that numbers are not the "Prime Directive". Most people are rationally afraid to discuss principle because it is also at the core of what we fight about in the first place but that is exactly why it needs to be discussed.

This leads to the dualism of diplomacy and the reality that there is at all times at the very least, two sides, the thesis and the antithesis of self-interest.

Like they say "inda'hood, Id's jus u n'me babe".

At this very most we need remember that Bob is exactly correct when he admonishes that there coexists an almost infinite set of alternatives to two and when discussing the politics of any situation as this reflects the individual and collective interests of all people. The Socratic application of the dialectic is the source. Hegel is an attempt at refinement of that method of reasoning and I happen to agree with Bob that Socrates' use is more profound and correct than modern man's.

So how has the paradigm shifted?

Backward?


[quote]
Yes, war is morally justifiable. However I must point out that morality is a political argument used to justify conflict. In other words, morality is relative and easily juxtaposed with self interest. Rather than asking whether war is morally justifiable you should be asking whether it is legally justifiable. After all, international law is what has come to symbolize morality since the end of WWII.  [/quote]

So here agree we can agree to disagree and still what will stop war between us?

If you feel you are a viable threat to me then do you think that will lead me to not challenging your might?

Why shouldn't I see this as more than a dare, but an intent to dominate?

You see the perspective of the rest of the world isn't necessarily in accord with that of the US. Even adopting this policy is tantamount to forcing a conflict, ironically not only with sworn enemies but with our true friends.

This is a very crucial distinction and one that we will be returning to from time to time but I have to disagree with the basic premise. War is never morally justifiable, it may be ethically acceptable as a risk/reward and question of lesser evils but please don't confuse the two or next perhaps you will be telling how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

"Can immortals condone killing?"

Saille asked this simple question and its profound ramifications are so significant that it does deserve its own thread. It is a significantly more profound question than me and Bob squaring off about the Hegelian Dialectic versus the Socratic Method. For most people their eyes I am sure start glazing at the very mention of the topic titles but you have made an assumption about morality that I think you will find is not rationally supportable, it is merely a lesser evil argument.

There are people who are so convinced that the morality of this question is indisputable that they have forsworn even a right of self-defense. I respect the strength of commitment such discipline requires. I do not scoff at such "Societies of Friends" as foolish utopians and simple self deluded idealists. I find in their humble, yet determined and profound resolve, hope.

As a matter of fact I sense the best path to the future comes more from the strength of their logic rather than from any alleged security from dependency upon weapons of mass destruction.

I am not a liberal because I believe in moderation in all things.

I am not a liberal because I believe in moderating moderation and do appreciate the need on occasion for extreme action but I claim it is the right and responsibility for each of us to make that decision, not our government's.

I am not a liberal because I would prefer not to explain that path of validation in all its detail, though tragically obvious, of where it ultimately leads, I am however confident that you will take us there.


[quote]
Additionally, I am all for a debate of the costs of a war in Iraq. As long as it done fairly. Tossing that $2 Trillion number around seems a tad high, wouldn't you say. Also, note that it is not taking into account the savings we would get from a fall in oil prices after Iraq's supply is opened up.
[/quote]

Actually it is all a matter of perspective and what one sees as their ultimate responsibility. It is about putting our money where our mouth is. Consider that the spectrum for reality simple falls somewhere in-between. You would like to see just the figures at the lower end but let me warn you that once we start we will pay what ever it takes and it will be a great price no matter what.

Just what the final price in blood and money will yet be is ambiguous, and these high side numbers cannot be easily disregarded. In spite of the fact that they only come from the paid experts brought in to analyze the problem by the agencies upon which the responsibility will fall to address the aftermath in all its very personal glory.

[quote]
QUOTE (Lazarus Long @ Jan 25, 2003)
This is not idle threat, civil wars are not fought by the extremist poles of a society they are fought by the vast majority that form a balanced, polarized, and visceral opposition near the center. In other words the majority in the middle. We see signs of such division in our own populace with the last presidential election. Could we see greater division and social strife generated by having a conflict in the Middle East? You can bet on it.

And Mr. Kissinger replies:

External threats tend to galvanize a nation. Another terrorist attack and the divisions in the US will disappear for a while again. The odds of a civil war in the US are zero. Social strife is another issue, but the protests that have taken place so far are marginalized because the majority of the populace knows that these groups are radical in their beliefs. If you think the Middle East could turn into another Vietnam you are mistake. Why do you think the establishment did away with the draft? Some people, especially in liberal democracies like the US, are not fighters. That is fine. Instead of prejudicing their decision by instilling fear in them about being drafted, they should be able to make an informed, objective opinion about war from afar.  [/quote]
It is still true that the masses of man seem to still need human sacrifice to come to common cause as they have for oh so many millenniums, tell me again why this time we can't save the virgin?

Explain again why we sacrifice for effect?

When is enough, enough, to address the questions of numbers facing our species in common?

When will we stop with intentional sacrifices made like the "Sinking of the Maine", the Gulf of Tonkien" and even possibly Pearl Harbor?

No you don't think this will tear at the very fabric that binds this nation?

Sadly you are mistaken as to the amount of time the tragedies we are common witness to will delude the mass of the populace into adhering to the party line. This is fundamentally a much larger issue domestically then externally and may be truly at the core of both the most important aspects of the debate as well as the enmity between regional and specific interest groups of the US. It will be tragic for it s a lose/lose scenario and those sacrificed in vain will not avert the greater conflict in time it will become causi belli.

The divisions this is going to create at home will eventually divide families, friends, village, and states. It will create mortal foes. I see this current trend as open threat to the stability and security of this Republic and I see the threat as domestic not just foreign. You bet this can and most probably will cause a war at home.

Regardless of which side one is on, I think we can agree that the fear of a threat to our state is just reason for concern. What we disagree upon is from “whom and what,” comes the greatest threat. Beware of being blindsided to yourself. Plausible deniability is a form of self-delusion and could be the greatest enemy of all.

The whole world is watching.

I agree with you Bob about Hegel in that I don't credit the application of the dialectic with regard to socioeconomics. This isn't just about rich and poor alone; it is about the vast majority of people in between. Capitalism and communism are a false dichotomy. Not because neither doctrine reflects the abstract polar positions of the theory but because the abstractions both have effect in reality, and don't exist in a pure form as any kind of a viable state. They coexist like Relativity and Quantum mechanics. Consider this the physics of politics.

You don't have to see this as a synthesis, just a reflection of reality.

The Federalists won the duel for control of this Nation even when the architect of this policy was gunned down in a duel and the Vice-President tried to secede. Losing a battle doesn't necessarily mean losing a war. One must always compare long and short term objectives. Hamilton gets murdered and Burr eventually tries to break away, his sentiments fueling the Southern Mindset for decades to come, very crucial decades.

Do you see past five year plans Mr. Kissinger?

If so, what vision of the future would you prefer, and what are you afraid of?

Is the idea of a labor in common so frightening to management that we would never make common cause with a foreign land?

This too was said by that Statesman General and fonder of our Republic in that speech I mention above:

[quote]
…Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

G. Washington, Farewell Address to Congress

[/quote]

I have been known to have had epic battles with my father, my friend but I always listened, I just didn't always obey. Before you get me to embark upon this stated purpose with the case you make I would ask you to reconsider why you think you know so much more today then did the Father's of this Country we hold so dear and why you are so quick to second guess them?

The ambiguity of the English infinitive "to listen" is that to hear does not mean automatically to obey.

You think Washington such a primitive and uneducated clout from the frontier that he could not understand the complexity of the world today?

I in turn question whether in fact most who claim expertise in this matter are not self deluded?

Whether or not those who seek power, do so for themselves and of little higher purpose?

I question whether or not we are being lead to battle to serve MY self interest. Nor do I see these as the true interests of this nation. I perceive us being instead trapped in conflicts of interest by self-serving groups that are merely afraid to lose their powerful economic base. I ponder not only the motives for war but also why the stated arguments appear to be enough reason for some?

I wonder at why so much more appears to be going on then meets our eyes and why I cannot trust those that are claiming to be my protector?

I protect myself reasonable well, thank you very much, I didn't ask for your protection. The best defense as a good offense is an important part of football but as far as foreign affairs goes it is of limited potential and invariable comes to impede progress.

[bobdrake12]

Additionally, I am all for a debate of the costs of a war in Iraq. As long as it done fairly. Tossing that $2 Trillion number around seems a tad high, wouldn't you say. Also, note that it is not taking into account the savings we would get from a fall in oil prices after Iraq's supply is opened up.

Kissinger,

Is the cost of this war to be only measured in dollars and cents?

bob

[bobdrake12]

The divisions this is going to create at home will eventually divide families, friends, village, and states. It will create mortal foes. I see this current trend as open threat to the stability and security of this Republic and I see the threat as domestic not just foreign. You bet this can and most probably will cause a war at home.

Lazarus Long,

Some projected this prior to the first Gulf War, yet these fears did not (for the most part) materialize. What would make this Gulf War different from the first one?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 February 2003 - 03:50 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Some projected this prior to the first Gulf War, yet these fears did not (for the most part) materialize. What would make this Gulf War different from the first one?

I did not at that time believe such, frankly I considered returning to my unit as I felt Saddam's clear intention and AGGRESSION had to be met and my loyalties were with my fellow soldiers.

I think the rest of the allies felt much the same at the time.

The scope and scale of this conflict are profoundly different. This isn't just about quick hits on foreign tyrants. It can only be done legitimately as Nation Building and that means bases and troops of occupation and most importantly an International Consensus.

Also:

This time Saddam has not acted as an open aggressor.

His criminal activity is bad but doesn't require this level of precipitous action.

The destabilization of the region is going to spill over and we will be dragged into conflicts that we don't want and we will take advantage of the destabilization to try and manipulate other scenarios, which mean expeditionary forces into conflicts that haven't even started yet. We will be forced to maintain bases of operation in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, not just the Iranian border of Iraq but the Syrian border as well will need defending.

This open attempt to "contain" Iran is not likely to foment a revolution as much as be seen as a serious legitimate foreign threat of aggression that WILL unit them against us.

We are also going to have troops on the ground in as many as fifty other regions and theaters of operation in order just to confront al Qaeda this may be necessary anyway on some scale but certainly not necessarily this one. Instead of stabilizing Jordan this is more likely going to destabilize the Palestinian refugee population and cause insurrection there too. Then it will spill over to all sides of Israel and that too will cause us to send more, and more forces to the region to act as "peace keepers". This will mandate both proxy armies and the draft at home, a draft that this time by law will have to include women. Title Nine after all.

If we wanted to kill Saddam in 91' we should have but mounting this scale of expense and assault at this time is a political diversion and distraction from a more serious and professional search and destroy mission to confront al Qaeda. And I for one am under the impression it is they that are the real enemy.

I am also seeing a very different division of regional force within the Republic. The last election has generated a lot of bad blood. And while many back the President many also see him as a "Selected Dictator". While liberals feared the father he never earned this level of visceral hatred.

Many more people this time are already moving and organizing. The longer this goes forward the sooner the Domestic security forces will be forced to repeat the politics of domestic surveillance and counter intelpro that begins to overlap domestic political issues like Environmental extremism and subversive foreign terrorists. This linkage has already been attempted by members of the extreme right and it will force these groups to move to even more levels of extremism as they will have no redress of grievance and little hope for rational resolution.

This isn't going to bankrupt America but it will drastically alter the nature of Federal spending and saying lets reduce taxes now is ridiculous because if we spend this level of investment in conflict we still have to pay the piper and someone will pick up the tab. Are we planning on openly looting the Iraqi treasury? I thought we were Nation Building and giving that wealth to the people of the nation to which it belongs?

Piggy-backed on the current dilemma is a swing to the "Religious Right Agenda" that George the First resisted (a major reason he was not reelected) and this will include trying to stack the Supreme Court not only with Conservative appointees but Anti-Abortion ones and this will further divide gender and family. We are going to have to face many of these problems anyway but now we will be facing them simultaneously.

These are not even all the reasons I see this as qualitatively different then the first Gulf War but at least I can say it is a start. I can only add that many, many people question the underlying motives this time in a more direct and personal conflict of interest when we talk of the connection of Big Oil interest and this White House Administration. Eventually this too will cause more then simple friction between the protagonists. Soon, as the 2004 election approaches the magnitude of this conflict will overlap and it is likely to get ugly in direct proportion to the level of ugliness seen worldwide.

The level of dissent in Europe is becoming overwhelming. The Leaderships are risking open revolt at the polls for backing US interest this time and then we will ask "How can a Democratic People" vote against us? and it will be too late. Opinion polls abroad are abroad but as business and political affairs become more Byzantine and fraught with failure the losses will mount up and the stress this time won't be resolved by spending our way into self-delusion and complacency.

Oh, and as a last point I am not even raising the issue of Korea here or any further need to enter into other regional disputes that are either ongoing or about to start, in Africa, Columbia, and regional conflicts like India/Pakistan, China/Tibet/Mongolia, internal dissent in the former Soviet states that are for the present seen as benevolent dictatorships but are about as democratic as Saudi Arabia.

I also think this is playing into the enemies hand in a global strategic sense as it will ultimately bring the downfall of the Persian Gulf states in precisely the kind of regional collapse that al Qaeda wants and we are unprepared for. Unless one credits the return of the Hashemite Empire. We might as well be talking TransJordan, does anyone really think these are good things?

Hasn't anybody realized that the reason we are facing this situation is because the policies of the past that have created the scenarios that we now must face were the result of the same strategic objectives and methods?

The tried and failed tactics of colonialism are not going to work this time, and they shouldn't be attempted.

[DJS]

Please select the weapon{s} of your choice, feel free, take your time and feel the balance, the way cold steel transforms hot flesh, practice and understand that you must become one with your weapon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So you think we should just heft a little weight around and everyone will take notice huh?  Yes they certainly do.  Have you bothered to ask them what it is they think about what they notice?

Many think we're definitely dangerous, and possibly incompetent, if not a little demented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
the same strategists that took up the policy of arming and fomenting "Religious Extremism" in the region of Southern Asia against the Soviets that have now come full circle to manage a crisis, they in fact set in motion back then.  They did it to exploit traditional rivalries and divisions within the Soviet Block.  In particular they funded the Taliban, Mujahadeen, and a specific group that came to be known as al Qaeda and its leader, Usamma bin Laden.  

Now these are the same guys that are going after their own runaway puppet the way Noriega had to hide from Big Daddy.  The easiest way they could justify attacking Iraq is if someone could claim bin Laden was hold up there.  The only problem with this is that bin Laden originally tried to kill Saddam.  

But what's a little blood between rivals?  

Could he be there now?

Who?

O. bin Laden, dats who...

Only one problem, he is smarter than that.  bin Laden's ecstatic we are taking out his former foe and creating a possible vacuum for messianic monarchs to manipulate and maneuver in.  It is exactly the scenario he has been preparing for and training towards all along.  He is getting us to do his dirty work and effectively destabilize the region allowing for power vacuums that his cadre can fill.

My father gave me a blackjack a few years ago. I carry it with me when I do appraisals in Newark. My weapon is one of practicality and convenience. One which is easily concealed and gets the job done. I do not look at weapons as beautiful pieces of art. I view them as objects that can maim and kill. That is their purpose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, throwing some weight around isn't always a bad thing. We conduct our foreign policy with a certain measure of restraint, which can't be said for the Russians--just ask the citizens of Grozny. Oh I forgot, its not there anymore...

Dangerous? No, we are not dangerous to the major players. They realize that our liberalized democracy has a moderating effect on our foreign policy. Some of them even take advantage of this fact by playing our public against our government. The North Vietnamese had this game down to an art form.

Incompetent? You can't have it both ways Lazarus. Either we are devious and clever or we are incompetent. Which is it?

Demented? And whose opinion would this be? Russia, China, France, Germany...
These are our competitors. I do not worry about their opinions. No matter how restrained our actions, they would still view us with suspicion. That is because of our size and strength. I think you worry about the competition's opinion too much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, yes, yes We have created bin Laden, he is our Frankenstein. I have heard this before.

We have been through this already. I know what you are saying. It does not bother me. Being a quasi empire requires playing these games. Sometimes what is done in secrecy is inappropriate, but necessary. You must always ask yourself what is possible, what is realistic? Then frame those calculations in an historical perspective. This is the only way you can do our foreign policy justice. Geo-politics is always so difficult to justify, but what are the alternatives? Should we just retreat home and sit on our hands? You know that that is not an option.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He (OBL) is getting us to do his dirty work for him." LL

This is a point that has not been lost on me. When you play a game of chess you always try to put yourself in your opponent's shoes. You always try to figure out the objectives he is working towards. This is how you project moves ahead. It is also the only way you can ever become a decent chess player.

So let me ask my favorite question. What's your end game champ? Project OBL's plan of action. It is not lost on me that 15 of the 18 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. That is not a coincidence. It was meant to separate us from the Saudis, effectively isolating them. Mission accomplished.

But what is OBL's goal? To topple all of the regimes of the Middle East and replace them with radical Islamic ones? That wouldn't make any sense. Al Qaeda is a shadowy terrorist organization. By giving itself physical form in nation-states it would be giving up its greatest advantage. It would also give us hard targets and an excuse to do our own toppling. Or is that the whole point... To topple all of the regimes propped up by us in favor of radical Islam or even---a radical ungovernable Arab street (created by us after we topple the fundamental Islamic states) which is in need of our constant occupation. Sort of like one a giant Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

I know this is scary shit, but you must realize one thing. We are not Israel. If suicide bombers start detonating themselves in movie theaters and dirty bombs start going off in major cities we are going to go nuts. We'll drop nukes. We will destroy their civilization. There will be no Arabs left. I say this with no bravado, this is the worst possible scenario. It is also what OBL does not realize--that we can be terrorists also. That when our survival is put into question we become what he is--primitive and brutal. And we got the toys to back it up.

You can criticize the nature of the beast, but do you doubt that my assessment is correct?

Edited by Kissinger, 04 February 2003 - 08:56 AM.

[DJS]

I think we should change the thread to not whether there should be a war in Iraq, but what will happen in the aftermath. Come on guys, isn't it obvious that this is going down? Why not start looking at the possibilities instead of living in a fantasy world thinking that this isn't going to happen?

[DJS]

Did we destroy al Qaeda?  No.

Did we catch Usamma bin Laden?  No.

Did we destroy the Taliban?  Apparently and they were a terrible threat.  They had mounted cavalry and no effective airforce, tanks and heavy weapons.  Oh yes, a major battle won here.

Did we bring peace and security to the country?  No.
------------------------------------------------------------

Lies and Oil?

Nobody will credit our arguments for reform if whenever they scratch the slightest bit at the surface of our new found altruism they discover this greasy slimy truth, when we say reform all we generally mean is oil. Oil flowing securely NOT just to us, but to our allies. In particular our allies in Europe and Asia.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rome wasn't an agrarian economy based on simple conquest, Rome was the first Military Industrial Republic with a dependency on global free market capitalism and a multicultural populous.  Much of your above statements are simply ignorant of history and this bodes ill for you are MORE likely to repeat unnecessary mistakes from the past.  
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you feel you are a viable threat to me then you think that will lead me to not challenging your might?  Why shouldn't I see this as more than a dare, but an intent to dominate?  You see the perspective of the rest of the world isn't necessarily in accord with that of the US.  Even adopting this policy is tantamount to forcing a conflict.  Ironically not only with sworn enemies but with our true friends.
---------------------------------------------------------
There are people who are so convinced that the morality of this question is indisputable that they have forsworn even a right of self-defense.  I respect the strength of commitment such discipline requires. I do not scoff at such "Societies of Friends" as foolish utopians and simple self deluded idealists.  I find in their humble, yet determined and profound resolve, hope.

As a matter of fact I sense the best path to the future comes more from the strength of their logic rather than from any alleged security from dependency upon weapons of mass destruction.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No you don't think this will tear at the very fabric that binds this nation?  

The divisions this is going to create at home will eventually divide families, friends, village, and states.  It will create mortal foes.  I see this current trend as open threat to the stability and security of this Republic and I see the threat as domestic not just foreign.  You bet this can and most probably will cause a war at home.  
-------------------------------------------------------------
You think Washington such a primitive and uneducated clout from the frontier that he could not understand the complexity of the world today?

Your criticisms on Afghanistan are unwarranted. Before we went in all the doubters were whispering in the American public's ear, "We're going to get bogged down just like the Russians did." We didn't. Then afterwards, the success that we did have just wasn't good enough for them. We did destroy a lot of Al Qaeda. We took out the Taliban. We dismantled the terrorist infrastructure. We set our guy up in Kabul. I think our performance in Afghanistan was quick and pretty. The one regret is, of course, Tora Bora.

As far as putting boots on the ground at Tora Bora... I think we should have used nukes. The collateral damages would have been minimal because its in the middle of nowhere and you probably would have gotten most of the rats hiding in the caves from either the explosions or the fallout.

I also think that the reason we didn't put guy on the ground is because of Tommy Franks. The guy looks like a goof ball and I personally think he is incompetent. He is currently under investigation for allowing his wife to sit in on a classified meeting. I just know that behind the scenes Rumsfeld is dragging his sorry ass along for the ride. As soon as the combat phase in the Iraq conflict is over I predict Franks will make his departure.

As far as the Neo Hawks having an aversion to nation building, times change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight. We're going into Iraq to supply Europe with more oil? And they're complaining about it!?! God the French really are assholes. [wacko]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't dismiss my knowledge of Ancient Rome. I am not ignorant of history. [ph34r] Originally Rome was an empire of conquest. They gained more wealth from the civilizations they conquered than the amount it cost them to do the conquering. Eventually it began to cost them more to hold onto these conquests than it was worth. Gradually their economy went from one of conquest to agriculture. Their empire started to crumble when their crop yields started to diminish and their rate of return started to decrease. There are other theories but that is the one I buy into.
--------------------------------------------------------
No the perspective of the world is not in accord with the US. I agree. And indeed, we should not trample on the interests of everyone else unless one day we may wake up to find we are all alone. But I ask you this. Aren't we as good as it gets? Do other free democracies really have a choice? Further, who is going to stop us? We spend more on our military than the next 15 on the list combined. Let's run down the GDP #s, shall we?

US 10.6 TR
CH 4.6
JP 2.8
IN 2.5
GR 2.2
EN 2.0
FR 2.0
RU 1.0

AOL Time Warner lost $100 billion dollars last year. That's the GDP of Southern Africa!

I ask you again. Who is going to stop us?
-------------------------------------------------------------
"War is never morally justifiable."--LL I simply disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonkin was all LBJ, a domestic politician in over his head.
-----------------------------------------------------------
These people that you refer to who are so against war, I view them as a national weakness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as your predictions of a civil war-- I think you are way off base. My calculations simply provide a different outlook. When this is all said and done I will say, "I told you so."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I don't think Washington was a primitive and uneducated clout. I have great respect for Washington, but using his statements from 220 years ago are like using statements from FDR 220 years from now. It probably won't fly. Whether Washington would have understood the complexities of our world is idle speculation.

Edited by Kissinger, 04 February 2003 - 12:55 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Is the cost of this war to be only measured in dollars and cents?

Kissinger,

So far this question, I believe, remains unanswered. Do you consider it of any relevance?

Kissinger wrote:

I think we should change the thread to not whether there should be a war in Iraq, but what will happen in the aftermath. Come on guys, isn't it obvious that this is going down?

Has the war started? Has the US invaded?


What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) for invading Iraq?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 04 February 2003 - 02:51 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Lazarus Long,

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

bob

[Bruce Klein]

BY SAILLE WILLOW
(There's a current glitch in the forums that will not allow some to login - to be corrected soon, however, I'm posting this for Saille in the meantime)

Rats taught me a valuable lesson. You can only hate and be willing to kill that which you do not know. I woke up one night with a rat literally skidding on my eyelid. I decided that's it, they are threatening my existence, they've got to go, kill them. The pest control came and the dying started. I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach. The stench of the dead came after that with the arrival of the flies. It sounded so easy getting the experts in and you would be rid of them. The reality was quite different. But the rats were gone and posed no more threat or so we thought.

Alas, rats breed fast and soon they were back. (Pest control only gives a 3-month guarantee) None of us wanted to go through that again, horrible as it was, it would be better just to beat them to death ourselves. Not knowing what else to do we started to observe them. It was not long before we were impressed with their incredible agility, speed, strength and ability to effortlessly scale what seem to be impossible. Above all we were stunned with their intelligence. Worse we started to like and respect them and the thought of killing was no longer a possibility. However from observing them without thinking them horrible, filthy creatures we found a way to trap them unharmed and to release them where they could do no more harm.

According to the Ancient Egyptians to have knowledge, means to unite oneself with the object, concept or idea one requires to understand. You have to get close to it, be open and unbiased. Then you can find a just solution to a problem. The world needs a paradigm shift. We cannot move to the next level unless we learn to solve problems without violence. As long as we think that another is worse or better there can be no peace. For in either case there will be a desire to attack or defend. If you want an Infinite Lifespan you must have no enemies. You simply cannot watch your back all the time, you need friends.

"Whether you shoot a Zebra in the black or the white, the whole animal still dies. " Pik Botha, former minister of foreign affairs, South Africa. War is a threat to our future. We cannot make a paradigm shift until we look beyond our borders and see we all share a common goal. What effects one effects the other. Like it or not we are all still inhabitants of this one earth. Borders are man made. Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right? I for one cannot find happiness through the suffering of another.

When you aspire to an Infinite Lifespan, all of life becomes precious. What makes my life worth living, is the richness of life that surrounds me. Can you imagine what it would be like to be an Immortal in a barren world devoid of all life other than your own? Life would be pretty meaningless. At least with an Infinite Lifespan, we would all have a chance to grow up.

[Cyto]

I do agree with the growing up part. I run into some of the most obnoxious adults that never seemed to grow up and understand a bunch of key concepts in living. I second Saille about the "giving time to grow up" a million fold.

Immortals will most certinly give new meaning to what it is to be really human!

[DJS]

We cannot move to the next level unless we learn to solve problems without violence. As long as we think that another is worse or better there can be no peace. For in either case there will be a desire to attack or defend. If you want an Infinite Lifespan you must have no enemies. You simply cannot watch your back all the time, you need friends.

Saille,

I am going to try to make an honest attempt to explain my position to you and why I disagree with your plea for peace.

First, rats were not the greatest example to use. I hate rats. lol But in all seriousness...

I remember that you said you were from Africa. As such, I can see why you would have such a repulsion to the concept of war. Regional conflicts have held your continent below subsistence levels since the end of the Colonial Era. There are no winners in the conflicts of Africa, whether it be Rwanda or the Ivory Coast. I do not claim to be an expert on African affairs, but I think I understand.

However, now I would like to bring you away from your continent for a minute. Put yourself in the shoes of America. America is a powerful nation. This is a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that we control our destiny. The curse is that we control the destiny of others as well. This causes resentment, distrust, and jealousy. Nonetheless, it is a responsibility we can not avoid. We are the protectorates. When there are threats to world security and peace we are the ones who must act.

The regime of Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace. You don't doubt that, do you? The man has killed thousands upon thousands of his own people with chemical weapons. He tortures children in front of their mothers. He is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. How do you reason with someone like this? How do you tolerate a dictator like Hussein? Saille, he is against everything you stand for.

There is a lesson to be learned from World War II and Hitler's Germany. The forces of good were slow to act. The result was that six million Jews were killed in cold blood. Even still, based on your logic, the United States had no right to attack Germany. After all, they hadn't really done anything to us. Imagine the state of the world today if we hadn't said enough is enough. Imagine how many more millions of people would have died had we not stood our ground against the rising forces of evil.

I say with great confidence; that there is no peace in this world except peace through strength. Passive resistance only works in a society that is relatively enlightened. Had Ghandi tried his passive resistance in Nazi Germany he would have been thrown into the gas chamber with the rest of them.

Don't you see? This is the human condition, this eternal struggle. Wishing it better does not make it so. Your words are those of an innocent. Your words are those of hopes and dreams. But they are not reality. Saille, you do not achieve such a noble dream as world peace by dreams alone.

[bobdrake12]

What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) that you see for invading Iraq?

Powell provided evidence today to the U.N. Security Council.

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?

bob

http://news.yahoo.co...e_mi_ea/un_iraq


Powell Presents Evidence Against Iraq (excerpts)

By EDITH M. LEDERER and DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writers

UNITED NATIONS - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), relying on a stream of U.S. intelligence, urged the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to move against Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) because Iraq has failed to disarm, harbors terrorists and hides behind a "web of lies."

His extraordinary presentation in the packed council chamber included satellite photographs, intercepted conversations between senior Iraqi officers and statements from informants that could make or break support for going to war with Iraq.

Russia, France, China and other council members skeptical of the need for a military confrontation said they would review the evidence and demand answers from Baghdad. Most said weapons inspections should continue, Iraq must immediately cooperate and diplomatic efforts should be sought to avert war.

France and Germany went further, calling for strengthening the inspections regime that was already toughened up in November under a Security Council resolution crafted by Washington and adopted by an unanimous council.

Iraqi officials dismissed Powell's case as a collection of "stunts" and "special effects" that relied on "unknown sources" and was aimed at undermining the work of the inspectors.

Powell's presentation was part of a diplomatic offensive that intensified with President Bush (news - web sites)'s State of the Union address last week. The administration's next move is to determine whether council members are willing to support a new U.N. resolution specifically authorizing force against Iraq.

Bush has said that the United States — with or without its allies — will forcibly disarm Iraq if it does not immediately comply with U.N. resolutions. But winning U.N. approval would mean the United States could share the costs of war and rebuilding Iraq and would be operating with the support of the international community.

A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the next 24 to 36 hours will be critical as Powell gauges reaction. The key is France, one administration official said. If President Jacques Chirac insists on vetoing such a resolution, Bush won't seek one.

For many at the United Nations (news - web sites), a visit to Baghdad this weekend by the chief weapons inspectors, followed by their next reports to the council on Feb. 14, will be critical for any decision on war.

Powell told CBS' "60 Minutes II" in an interview that he would be watching the trip closely to see "whether they bring back anything of use for Security Council deliberations" next week. Powell said he is expecting to hear from the inspectors then "whether or not there has been any change in attitude" on the part of the Iraqis.

Britain, America's closest ally, prefers a second resolution but would join forces with the United States against Saddam without one. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Powell made a "most powerful" case Wednesday. Saddam is "gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will," Straw said.

In an 80-minute presentation, Powell claimed that Saddam has had a relationship with al-Qaida dating back to the mid-1990s and that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) has an operative in Iraq who sits atop a "sinister nexus" of terror. He didn't provide any evidence of the relationship, however.

Saddam, in an interview broadcast Tuesday in London, forcefully denied that his government has weapons of mass destruction or a relationship with al-Qaida.

In his presentation, Powell asserted that Iraq bulldozed land around a chemical complex in 2002 in order "to conceal chemical weapons evidence" and has hidden mobile biological weapons labs on at least 18 flatbed trucks.

Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector said Tuesday that he hadn't found any evidence of mobile labs.

Powell played audio tapes of what he described as intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military officers. One was a purported discussion about hiding vehicles from weapons inspectors. Another dealt with removing a reference to nerve agents from written instructions.

Powell, with CIA (news - web sites) Director George J. Tenet at his side, told the council Iraq is working on developing missiles with a range of about 620 miles or more, putting Russia and other nations within Iraq's reach. Under Security Council resolutions, Iraq is banned from having missiles with a range greater than 93 miles.

The secretary of state cited informants as saying that Iraqis are dispersing rockets armed with biological weapons in western Iraq.

He presented declassified satellite pictures that he said showed 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside.

Satellites observed cleanup activities at nearly 30 suspected weapons sites in the days before inspectors arrived, he said.

Powell presented his case in a rapid-fire delivery, moving from tape recordings to photos and other evidence without pause.

Some of the evidence, he said, was based on U.S. and foreign intelligence sources and he said the information shows Iraq is deliberately misleading inspectors about its weapons programs.

Edited by bobdrake12, 06 February 2003 - 04:51 AM.

[bobdrake12]

Is there an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection?

Is the evidence sufficent for an all out invasion or are there any other options?


bob

http://story.news.ya...q_terrorism&e=4

Powell Says Man Links Osama, Iraq (excerpts)

By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - He's the closest thing to a smoking gun in Washington's intelligence arsenal, a man who could finally and definitively link Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) with the world's most notorious terrorist and push reluctant allies to support a U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Abu Musab Zarqawi has been linked to the murder of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and poison plots in a half-dozen European countries. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the U.N. Security Council that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s man in Iraq sits atop a "sinister nexus" of terror, and that Saddam has been harboring his nefarious group.

"We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates," Powell said. "Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together."

Powell made the point to the world body that the al-Qaida operative — known for his expertise at concocting poison and his fanatic zeal for terrorism — was a threat to Europe, as well as America and the rest of the world. Some 116 operatives of the cell have been arrested around the world, Powell said.

"Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia," he said.

Not all observers were convinced of an Iraqi-al-Qaida connection, however.

Powell and other U.S. officials say Zarqawi has set up a camp in a corner of northern Iraq controlled by a tiny Kurdish extremist group, Ansar al-Islam. The region is outside Saddam's control, but Powell said the Iraqi president has an agent in the top leadership of Ansar al-Islam, and implied the group would not have offered al-Qaida refuge without Saddam's consent.

In May 2002, Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad after he fled Afghanistan (news - web sites), Powell said. He said that while Zarqawi was in the Iraqi capital, nearly two dozen other extremists converged there to establish a base of operations.

"These al-Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," Powell said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."

Powell also said Iraq's embassy in Pakistan served as a liaison between al-Qaida and the Iraqi leadership from the late 1990s until 2001, but he did not go into detail. Bin Laden was a guest at the time of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan, and Pakistan was one of just three countries to recognize the Taliban.

The secretary of state's comments were quickly rejected — both by the Iraqi regime and the leadership of Ansar al-Islam.

An expert on counterterrorism at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Jonathan Stevenson, called the link to Zarqawi "significant," but noted that Powell failed to tie Iraq to any previous al-Qaida operation.

Powell and other U.S. officials say Zarqawi has set up a camp in a corner of northern Iraq controlled by a tiny Kurdish extremist group, Ansar al-Islam. The region is outside Saddam's control, but Powell said the Iraqi president has an agent in the top leadership of Ansar al-Islam, and implied the group would not have offered al-Qaida refuge without Saddam's consent.

In May 2002, Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad after he fled Afghanistan (news - web sites), Powell said. He said that while Zarqawi was in the Iraqi capital, nearly two dozen other extremists converged there to establish a base of operations.

"These al-Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," Powell said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."

Powell also said Iraq's embassy in Pakistan served as a liaison between al-Qaida and the Iraqi leadership from the late 1990s until 2001, but he did not go into detail. Bin Laden was a guest at the time of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan, and Pakistan was one of just three countries to recognize the Taliban.

[bobdrake12]

When you aspire to an Infinite Lifespan, all of life becomes precious.

SAILLE WILLOW and all,

Some measure actions purely in dollars and cents or merely to further their agenda. Those that do (by placing an irrelevancy on life) eventually become threats to others. Here is where the danger begins.

I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach. The stench of the dead came after that with the arrival of the flies. It sounded so easy getting the experts in and you would be rid of them. The reality was quite different. But the rats were gone and posed no more threat or so we thought.

It is so easy to dehumanize and consider war a video game unless you have been close to war or experienced horrors similar to that of war.

The world needs a paradigm shift. We cannot move to the next level unless we learn to solve problems without violence.

Unless a paradigm shift is made, this current civilization is at risk.

Unfortunately, the current recorded history on this planet is that of war. The concern is that as technology continues to advance, the consequences of war escalates in the negative direction. We can illustrate this concept by comparing one person throwing a rock versus one person setting off a tactical nuke.

The issue is that the character of the humans on this planet has not changed significantly since the current recorded history while the technology continues to advance.

Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right? I for one cannot find happiness through the suffering of another.

The unfortunate reality is that there are some who dehumanize others in order to attain their agenda or to blindly follow a leader.

The pest control came and the dying started. I could hear them squeaking in agony. It was horrible and I felt sick in my stomach.

Now, here is the dilemma: If Iraq sponsors and supports terrorist organizations, Iraq becomes a threat. To compound that threat, if Iraq has weapons of mass distruction; the threat could be significant. Iraq could provide these arms to terrorist organizations, giving them the means manifest their hatred. These terrorist groups could attack or attempt to blackmail various countries. With these possibilities, the price of taking just symbolic action could be catastrophic.

In view of what Colon Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council regarding Iraq, what should be done? Do you believe Iraq is a threat to some other countries? If so, what are the options?

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 06 February 2003 - 10:10 AM.

[DJS]

Has the war started?  Has the US invaded?


What are the ethical principles ("just cause", moral high ground) for invading Iraq?

Yes Bob, the war has started. We bomb Iraqi installation targets in the southern no fly zone almost daily. We also already have covert forces in the north of Iraq working with opposition forces. Only the "official" war has not started yet. In all honesty I am just getting bored debating the wars legitimacy when it is going to happen anyway. There is no turning back at this point, to do so would be to undermine the authority of the Presidency and the United States. You don't send a 150,000 troops to the region to have them sit on their hands until the next winter.

All right, you need moral justification, I will give you moral justification.
If you want moral justification within the framework of international law refer to an early post I made on this thread. I can make that argument effectively, but it is not the one that I personally buy into. The UN is a political body, not a moral one.

Minus international law there are two moral arguments that can be made; self interest and self defense. I do not think you want to hear the self interest argument. Instead I am going to present the self defense argument.

Its actually pretty simple. One word--Proliferation. After 9/11 this concept no longer applies simply to nuclear proliferation between rogue nation states. It applies to proliferation between terrorist states and terrorist entities of any weapons of mass destruction. It need not just be nuclear. In fact, chemical and biological weapons are easier to proliferate.

Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. No one disputes this. Iraq has ties to terrorism. No one disputes this. Evidence has been provided by Sec Powell that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda. Some may dispute this. Some say the case is not conclusive. I personally believe that Iraq does have links to Al Qaeda. But even if someone is unsure that the links are there, can the chance be taken? Can you risk trusting the intentions of a sworn enemy? What is to stop him from supplying WMD to Al Qaeda? How do we know he hasn't already? We don't. If a chemical attack took place in the US, how could we prove that the materials were supplied by Saddam? We probably couldn't, that is the nature of this kind of proliferation.

Thousands of tons of cocaine are smuggled into this country each year. Our borders are porous. Imagine the destruction that we would see in the United States if Al Qaeda got their hands on a suitcase full of VX nerve agent and smuggled it into the US?

We are trying to cut off Al Qaeda's supply sources. I sincerely believe this.
I also believe that time is not on our side.

Edited by Kissinger, 07 February 2003 - 12:03 AM.